1. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hiyya • Hiyya Bar Abba • Hiyya bar Abba
Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 98; Lavee (2017) 123
|
2. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • R. Hiyya • R. hiyya bar Abba
Found in books: Katzoff(2005) 229; Levine (2005) 489
99b. רבא אמר דכ"ע ישנה לשכירות מתחילה ועד סוף ודכולי עלמא המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת ודכולי עלמא אין אומן קונה בשבח כלי,אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהוסיף לה נופך משלו רבי מאיר סבר מלוה ופרוטה דעתה אפרוטה ורבנן סברי מלוה ופרוטה דעתה אמלוה,ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא בשכר שעשיתי עמך אינה מקודשת בשכר שאעשה עמך מקודשת רבי נתן אומר בשכר שאעשה עמך אינה מקודשת וכל שכן בשכר שעשיתי עמך,ורבי יהודה הנשיא אומר באמת אמרו בין בשכר שעשיתי עמך ובין בשכר שאעשה עמך אינה מקודשת ואם הוסיף לה נופך משלו מקודשת,(מאי איכא) בין ת"ק לרבי נתן איכא בינייהו שכירות בין רבי נתן לר\' יהודה הנשיא איכא בינייהו מלוה ופרוטה,אמר שמואל טבח אומן שקלקל חייב לשלם מזיק הוא פושע הוא נעשה כאומר לו שחוט לי מכאן ושחט לו מכאן,למה ליה למימר מזיק הוא פושע הוא אי אמר מזיק הוא הוה אמינא הני מילי היכא דקא עביד בשכר אבל היכא דקא עביד בחנם לא קמ"ל פושע הוא,איתיביה רב חמא בר גוריא לשמואל הנותן בהמה לטבח וניבלה אומן פטור הדיוט חייב ואם נותן שכר בין הדיוט בין אומן חייב אמר ליה לעכר מוחך,אתא ההוא מרבנן קא מותיב ליה א"ל השתא שקלת מאי דשקל חברך קאמינא לכו אנא רבי מאיר וקאמריתו לי רבנן אמאי לא דייקת מילי שאני אומר מזיק הוא פושע הוא נעשה כאומר לו שחוט לי מכאן ושחט לו מכאן מאן אית ליה האי סברא רבי מאיר דאמר מבעי ליה למירמי אנפשיה,הי רבי מאיר אילימא הא רבי מאיר (קל"ן סימן),דתנן קשרו בעליו במוסירה ונעל בפניו כראוי ויצא והזיק בין תם בין מועד חייב דברי רבי מאיר,התם בקראי פליגי,אלא הא רבי מאיר דתנן לצבוע לו אדום וצבעו שחור שחור וצבעו אדום רבי מאיר אומר נותן לו דמי צמרו התם בידים קלאו מיניה,אלא הא רבי מאיר דתנן נשברה כדו ולא סילקה נפלה גמלו ולא העמידה רבי מאיר אומר חייב בנזקן וחכמים אומרים פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים וקיימא לן דבנתקל פושע הוא פליגי,אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן טבח אומן שקלקל חייב ואפילו הוא אומן כטבחי ציפורי ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והאמר רבה בר בר חנה עובדא הוה קמיה דרבי יוחנן בכנישתא דמעון ואמר ליה זיל אייתי ראיה דממחית לתרנגולים ואפטרך,לא קשיא כאן בחנם כאן בשכר כי הא דאמר רבי זירא הרוצה שיתחייב לו טבח יקדים לו דינר,מיתיבי המוליך חטים לטחון ולא לתתן ועשאן סובין או מורסן קמח לנחתום ועשאו פת ניפולין בהמה לטבח וניבלה חייב מפני שהוא כנושא שכר אימא מפני שהוא נושא שכר,ההוא מגרומתא דאתאי לקמיה דרב טרפיה ופטריה לטבח מלשלומי דמי פגעו ביה רב כהנא ורב אסי בההוא גברא אמרו ליה עביד בך רב תרתי,מאי תרתי אילימא תרתי לגריעותא דאיבעי ליה לאכשורי כר\' יוסי בר\' יהודה וטרפה כרבנן ואי נמי כרבנן דאיבעי ליה חיובא לטבחא ומי שרי למימר כי האי גונא,והתניא לכשיצא לא יאמר אני מזכה וחבירי מחייבין אבל מה אעשה שחבירי רבו עלי ועל זה נאמר (משלי יא, יג) הולך רכיל מגלה סוד,אלא תרתי למעליותא דלא אוכלך ספק איסורא ומנעך מספק גזילה,איתמר המראה דינר לשולחני ונמצא רע תני חדא אומן פטור הדיוט חייב ותניא אידך בין אומן בין הדיוט חייב,אמר רב פפא כי תניא אומן פטור כגון דנכו ואיסור דלא צריכי למיגמר כלל אלא במאי טעו טעו בסיכתא חדתא דההיא שעתא דנפק מתותי סיכתא,ההיא איתתא דאחזיא דינרא לרבי חייא אמר לה מעליא הוא למחר אתאי לקמיה ואמרה ליה אחזיתיה ואמרו לי בישא הוא ולא קא נפיק לי אמר ליה לרב זיל חלפיה ניהלה וכתוב אפנקסי דין עסק ביש,ומאי שנא דנכו ואיסור דפטירי משום דלא צריכי למיגמר רבי חייא נמי לאו למיגמר קא בעי רבי חייא לפנים משורת הדין הוא דעבד כדתני רב יוסף (שמות יח, כ) והודעת להם זה''. None | 99b. Rava said another interpretation: Everyone agrees that the obligation to pay a wage is incurred continuously from the beginning of the period a craftsman is hired to its end; and everyone agrees that with regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed; and everyone agrees that a craftsman does not acquire ownership rights through the enhancement of the vessel.,But with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he added a jewel nofekh of his own for her. Rabbi Meir holds that if a man betroths a woman with a loan and one peruta, her mind is focused on the peruta. Therefore, in this case the jewel serves as the betrothal money. And the Rabbis hold that if a man betroths a woman with a loan and one peruta her mind is focused on the loan, so the loan serves as the betrothal money, and if one betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed.,And Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree in the dispute between these tanna’im. As it is taught in the Tosefta (Kiddushin 3:4): If one says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with the payment for which I have worked for you, she is not betrothed, as the payment is a loan, since she already owes him this money. But if he says: Be betrothed to me with the payment for which I will work for you, she is betrothed, as from the moment he is entitled to the money, he gives it to her for her betrothal. Rabbi Natan says: If he says: Be betrothed to me with the payment for which I will work for you, she is not betrothed, as Rabbi Natan holds that the obligation to pay a wage is incurred continuously from the beginning of the period he was hired to its end, which means that upon the completion of the labor it is a loan, and all the more so if he says: Be betrothed to me with the payment for which I have worked for you.,The baraita cites a third opinion: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Actually they said that the halakha is that regardless of whether he said: With the payment for which I have worked for you, or whether he said: With the payment for which I will work for you, she is not betrothed. But if he added a jewel of his own for her, she is betrothed.,The Gemara clarifies the dispute: What difference is there between the first tanna and Rabbi Natan? The difference between them is with regard to a wage: Is the obligation incurred continuously or only upon the completion of the work? The difference between Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is the issue of a loan and one peruta. Rabbi Natan holds that if a man betroths a woman with a loan and one peruta her mind is focused on the loan, and in this case his jewel is disregarded; and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that her mind is focused on the peruta, in this case the jewel, and she is betrothed with the jewel.,§ The Gemara now returns to the topic of a craftsman who damages the item with which he is working. Shmuel says: An expert butcher who damaged an animal by slaughtering it incorrectly, thereby rendering it non-kosher, is liable to pay the owner of the animal for the damage. Why? He is one who causes damage; he is negligent; he is like one who is told by the animal’s owner to slaughter it from here, i.e., the area of the throat where ritual slaughter is performed, and he slaughtered it from there, i.e., a different area of the throat, in violation of the owner’s wishes.,The Gemara asks: Why must he say both that the butcher is one who causes damage and that he is negligent? The Gemara explains: If Shmuel had said only that he is one who causes damage, I would say that this statement applies only in a case where the butcher slaughtered the animal for pay, in which case, due to the extra responsibility that he bears, he is considered to be one who caused damage and is liable to pay even in a case where the damage was unintentional; but in a case where he does the work for free, I would say no, he is exempt from liability in a case where the damage was unintentional. Shmuel therefore teaches us that the butcher is negligent, and one who works without pay is analogous to an unpaid bailee, who is liable to pay for damage caused by negligence.,Rav Ḥama bar Gurya raised an objection to Shmuel from the Tosefta (10:10): With regard to one who gives an animal to a butcher, and the butcher killed it in a way that rendered it an animal carcass, if the butcher is an expert, then he is exempt from liability; if he is an ordinary person, without particular expertise in the act of ritual slaughter, he is liable. And if the owner of the animal paid the butcher, then regardless of whether he is an ordinary person or whether he is an expert, the butcher is liable to pay for the damage. This indicates that an expert butcher who slaughtered the animal improperly is exempt if he slaughtered it without pay. Shmuel said to him: May your mind be muddled for raising a ridiculous objection.,One of the Sages came and raised the same objection to Shmuel. Shmuel said to him: Now you shall receive what your friend received from me, since I say to you my statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and you say to me, i.e., you raise an objection, based upon the opinion of the Rabbis. Why were you not precise in your consideration of my choice of words? As I say: He is one who causes damage; he is negligent; he is like one who is told by the animal’s owner to slaughter it from here, and he slaughtered it from there. Who accepts this reasoning? It is Rabbi Meir, who says: He should have taken upon himself the responsibility to perform his task properly, and if he did not, he is liable to pay for the damage that he caused. The other baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who exempt him from liability.,The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Meir is Shmuel referring to? If we say it is this statement of Rabbi Meir, that is difficult. Parenthetically, the Gemara states that the letters kuf, lamed, nun serve as a mnemonic device for the three statements of Rabbi Meir that will be cited. It stands for: He tied it kesharo, to dye litzboa, and broke nishbera.,The Gemara returns to the matter at hand: As we learned in a mishna (45b): If the ox’s owner tied it with reins to a fence or locked the gate before it in an appropriate manner, but nevertheless the ox emerged and caused damage, whether the ox is innocuous or forewarned the owner is liable, since this is not considered sufficient precaution to prevent damage; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. As the Gemara explains on 45b, Rabbi Meir holds that a forewarned ox requires a heightened level of safeguarding, and since the owner did not safeguard it, he is liable. The same would apply here, that one who agrees to perform a task must exercise care in executing it. Otherwise, he will be held liable to pay for damage.,The Gemara explains why this cannot be the statement of Rabbi Meir that Shmuel was referring to: There, in that mishna, the Sages disagree with regard to the interpretation of biblical verses, not logical reasoning, as the Gemara explains there, and conclusions cannot be drawn from that halakha to this one.,Rather, it is this statement of Rabbi Meir that Shmuel is referring to, as we learned in a mishna (100b): If one gave wool to a dyer to dye it red for him, and he dyed it black, or to dye it black, and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner the value of his wool, indicating that he is liable to pay for the damage. The Gemara rejects this opinion: This statement also does not prove that according to Rabbi Meir a worker is liable to pay for a job performed improperly, since there, the dyer burned the wool, thereby removing it from the owner by direct action.,Rather, it is this statement of Rabbi Meir that Shmuel is referring to, as we learned in a baraita: If one’s jug broke on the road and he did not remove it, or if his camel fell on the road and he did not stand it up, Rabbi Meir says: He is liable for the damage that they cause, and the Rabbis say: He is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. The Gemara notes: And we maintain that they disagree with regard to the question of whether one who stumbles is considered negligent. According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, one who stumbles is considered negligent, since he should have paid attention while walking. He is therefore liable for whatever damage he causes. In the case of an expert butcher as well, Rabbi Meir holds that he is considered negligent when damaging the animal he slaughtered, and the Rabbis hold that he is not negligent and therefore exempt from liability.,The Gemara discusses Rabbi Yoḥa’s opinion concerning the case of an expert butcher. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥa says: An expert butcher who damaged an animal by slaughtering it incorrectly, thereby rendering it non-kosher, is liable to pay the owner of the animal, and even if he is as expert as the butchers of Tzippori, it is not considered an accident, and he is considered to be at fault. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥa actually say this? But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that there was an incident in which a butcher who damaged an animal was brought to court before Rabbi Yoḥa in the synagogue of the town Maon, and Rabbi Yoḥa said to the butcher: Go bring proof that you are an expert at slaughtering chickens, and I will exempt you from payment.,The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, in the aforementioned incident, the butcher slaughtered the animal for free, and he is therefore exempt, while there, in Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s previous statement, he slaughtered the animal for pay, and is therefore liable to pay for the damage. This is in accordance with that which Rabbi Zeira says: One who wants a butcher to be liable to pay him in the event that he damages the animal during slaughter should advance him a dinar, so that he is paid for his services, and he is consequently liable to pay damages.,The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta (10:9): One who brought wheat to another to grind for him, and the miller did not wet the grains sufficiently for the grinding to be performed effectively, and as a result he converted the grain into bran or coarse bran; or if one gave flour to the baker and he made bread that is underbaked and tends to crumble; or if one gave an animal to a butcher and the butcher killed it in a way that rendered it an unslaughtered animal carcass, the worker is liable, because he is like a paid bailee. This indicates that even if the work was done for free, the worker has the legal status of one who is paid, and he is liable to pay for the damage. The Gemara answers by emending the baraita: Say instead: Because he is a paid bailee and actually receives payment.,The Gemara relates: There was a certain animal that was slaughtered with an incision not in the neck that was brought before Rav. He declared it non-kosher, and exempted the butcher from paying its value. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi encountered that man, i.e., the owner of the animal, and they said to him: Rav did two for you.,The Gemara asks: What are the two? If we say there were two unfavorable rulings, what are they? One is that he should have declared the animal kosher, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that an animal that has been slaughtered in this manner is kosher, and instead he declared it non-kosher, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that it is not kosher. And the second is that even if he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, he should have ruled that the butcher is liable to pay for the damage. The Gemara challenges this explanation: But if these are the two that Rav Kahana and Rav Asi are referring to, is it permitted for them to say this type of statement to the owner of the animal?,But isn’t it taught in a baraita that when a judge leaves the courthouse, he should not say to the litigant: I found you innocent and my colleagues found you liable, but what can I do, since my colleagues outnumber me? And it is concerning a circumstance such as this that it is stated: “He that goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets; but he that is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter” (Proverbs 11:13).,Rather, the intention is that they told him that there were two favorable rulings: First, that by declaring the animal to be non-kosher, he did not allow you to eat an item about which there is uncertainty as to whether it is forbidden, and second, by exempting the butcher from paying you, he prevented you from being in a situation where there is uncertainty as to whether receiving payment from the butcher constitutes robbery, since you would have been given the butcher’s money when he may be exempt, as the animal may in fact be kosher.,§ The Gemara continues the discussion of an expert who erred, thereby causing a loss. It was stated: With regard to one who presents a dinar to a money changer to assess its value or authenticity and the money changer declares it valid, and it is found to be bad, i.e., invalid, causing its owner a monetary loss, it is taught in one baraita that if the money changer is an expert, he is exempt, while if he is an ordinary person he is liable. And it is taught in another baraita that irrespective of whether he is an expert or whether he is an ordinary person, he is liable to pay for the owner’s loss.,To reconcile the baraitot, Rav Pappa said: When the baraita teaches that an expert is exempt from liability, it is referring to renowned experts such as the money changers Dankhu and Issur, whose expertise is so great that they do not need to learn about assessing currency at all. The Gemara asks: But if they are so proficient, in what did they err? The Gemara answers: They erred with regard to a coin from a new press, which at that time was leaving the press, and they did not know its value.,The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who presented a dinar to Rabbi Ḥiyya to assess its authenticity. He said to her: It is a proper coin. The next day she came before him and said to him: I presented it to others, and they told me that it is a bad dinar, and I am not able to spend it. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rav: Go exchange it for her, and write on my tablet apinkasi: This was a bad transaction, as I should not have assessed the coin.,The Gemara asks: But what is different about Dankhu and Issur, who are exempt due to the fact that they do not need to learn about assessing currency? Rabbi Ḥiyya too did not need to learn, as he was also an expert. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Ḥiyya was not actually required to return a dinar to this woman, but when he did so he acted beyond the letter of the law. This is as that which Rav Yosef taught concerning the verse: “And you shall show them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do” (Exodus 18:20): “And you shall show them”; this is referring to''. None |
|
3. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hiyya bar Ammi • R. hiyya bar Ami
Found in books: Kosman (2012) 140; Levine (2005) 477
8a. מאי דכתיב (תהלים סט, יד) ואני תפלתי לך ה\' עת רצון אימתי עת רצון בשעה שהצבור מתפללין.,ר\' יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר מהכא (ישעיהו מט, ח) כה אמר ה\' בעת רצון עניתיך,ר\' אחא ברבי חנינא אמר מהכא (איוב לו, ה) הן אל כביר ולא ימאס וכתיב (תהלים נה, יט) פדה בשלום נפשי מקרב לי כי ברבים היו עמדי,תניא נמי הכי רבי נתן אומר מנין שאין הקב"ה מואס בתפלתן של רבים שנאמר הן אל כביר ולא ימאס וכתיב פדה בשלום נפשי מקרב לי וגו\' אמר הקב"ה כל העוסק בתורה ובגמילות חסדים ומתפלל עם הצבור מעלה אני עליו כאילו פדאני לי ולבני מבין אומות העולם,אמר ר"ל כל מי שיש לו בית הכנסת בעירו ואינו נכנס שם להתפלל נקרא שכן רע שנאמר (ירמיהו יב, יד) כה אמר ה\' על כל שכני הרעים הנוגעים בנחלה אשר הנחלתי את עמי את ישראל ולא עוד אלא שגורם גלות לו ולבניו שנא\' (ירמיהו יב, יד) הנני נותשם מעל אדמתם ואת בית יהודה אתוש מתוכם.,אמרו ליה לר\' יוחנן איכא סבי בבבל תמה ואמר (דברים יא, כא) למען ירבו ימיכם וימי בניכם על האדמה כתיב אבל בחוצה לארץ לא כיון דאמרי ליה מקדמי ומחשכי לבי כנישתא אמר היינו דאהני להו,כדאמר ר\' יהושע בן לוי לבניה קדימו וחשיכו ועיילו לבי כנישתא כי היכי דתורכו חיי א"ר אחא ברבי חנינא מאי קרא (משלי ח, לד) אשרי אדם שומע לי לשקד על דלתותי יום יום לשמור מזוזת פתחי וכתיב בתריה כי מוצאי מצא חיים.,אמר רב חסדא לעולם יכנס אדם שני פתחים בבית הכנסת שני פתחים סלקא דעתך אלא אימא שיעור שני פתחים ואחר כך יתפלל:,(תהלים לב, ו) על זאת יתפלל כל חסיד אליך לעת מצא אמר ר\' חנינא לעת מצא זו אשה שנא\' (משלי יח, כב) מצא אשה מצא טוב,במערבא כי נסיב אינש אתתא אמרי ליה הכי מצא או מוצא מצא דכתיב מצא אשה מצא טוב ויפק רצון מה\' מוצא דכתיב (קהלת ז, כו) ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה וגו\',ר\' נתן אומר לעת מצא זו תורה שנאמר (משלי ח, לה) כי מוצאי מצא חיים וגו\',רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר לעת מצא זו מיתה שנא\' (תהלים סח, כא) למות תוצאות,תניא נמי הכי תשע מאות ושלשה מיני מיתה נבראו בעולם שנאמר למות תוצאות תוצאות בגימטריא הכי הוו קשה שבכלן אסכרא ניחא שבכלן נשיקה אסכרא דמיא כחיזרא בגבבא דעמרא דלאחורי נשרא ואיכא דאמרי כפיטורי בפי ושט נשיקה דמיא כמשחל בניתא מחלבא,ר\' יוחנן אמר לעת מצא זו קבורה א"ר חנינא מאי קרא (איוב ג, כב) השמחים אלי גיל ישישו כי ימצאו קבר אמר רבה בר רב שילא היינו דאמרי אינשי ליבעי אינש רחמי אפילו עד זיבולא בתרייתא שלמא,מר זוטרא אמר לעת מצא זה בית הכסא אמרי במערבא הא דמר זוטרא עדיפא מכלהו.,אמר ליה רבא לרפרם בר פפא לימא לן מר מהני מילי מעלייתא דאמרת משמיה דרב חסדא במילי דבי כנישתא,אמר ליה הכי אמר רב חסדא מאי דכתי\' (תהלים פז, ב) אוהב ה\' שערי ציון מכל משכנות יעקב אוהב ה\' שערים המצויינים בהלכה יותר מבתי כנסיות ומבתי מדרשות,והיינו דאמר ר\' חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא מיום שחרב בית המקדש אין לו להקב"ה בעולמו אלא ארבע אמות של הלכה בלבד.,ואמר אביי מריש הוה גריסנא בגו ביתא ומצלינא בבי כנישתא כיון דשמענא להא דאמר רבי חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא מיום שחרב בית המקדש אין לו להקב"ה בעולמו אלא ארבע אמות של הלכה בלבד לא הוה מצלינא אלא היכא דגריסנא.,רבי אמי ורבי אסי אף על גב דהוו להו תליסר בי כנישתא בטבריא לא מצלו אלא ביני עמודי היכא דהוו גרסי:,ואמר רבי חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא גדול הנהנה מיגיעו יותר מירא שמים דאילו גבי ירא שמים כתיב (תהלים קיב, א) אשרי איש ירא את ה\' ואילו גבי נהנה מיגיעו כתיב (תהלים קכח, ב) יגיע כפיך כי תאכל אשריך וטוב לך אשריך בעולם הזה וטוב לך לעולם הבא ולגבי ירא שמים וטוב לך לא כתיב ביה:,ואמר רבי חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא לעולם ידור אדם במקום רבו שכל זמן ששמעי בן גרא קיים לא נשא שלמה את בת פרעה,והתניא אל ידור,לא קשיא הא דכייף ליה הא דלא כייף ליה:,אמר רב הונא בר יהודה אמר רבי מנחם אמר ר\' אמי מאי דכתי\' (ישעיהו א, כח) ועוזבי ה\' יכלו זה המניח ס"ת ויוצא,רבי אבהו נפיק בין גברא לגברא.,בעי רב פפא בין פסוקא לפסוקא מהו,תיקו,רב ששת מהדר אפיה וגריס אמר אנן בדידן ואינהו בדידהו:,אמר רב הונא בר יהודה אמר רבי אמי לעולם ישלים אדם פרשיותיו עם הצבור שנים מקרא ואחד תרגום''. None | 8a. What is the meaning of that which is written: “But as for me, let my prayer be unto You, Lord, in a time of favor; O God, in the abundance of Your mercy, answer me with the truth of Your salvation” (Psalms 69:14)? It appears that the individual is praying that his prayers will coincide with a special time of Divine favor. When is a time of favor? It is at the time when the congregation is praying. It is beneficial to pray together with the congregation, for God does not fail to respond to the entreaties of the congregation.,Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that the unique quality of communal prayer is derived from here: “Thus said the Lord, in a time of acceptance I have answered you and on a day of salvation I have aided you” (Isaiah 49:8).,Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that it is derived from here: “Behold, God is mighty, He despises no one” (Job 36:5). He adopts an alternative reading of the verse: “Behold, God will not despise” the prayer of “the mighty,” i.e., the community. And it is written: “He has redeemed my soul in peace so that none came upon me; for there were many with me. God shall hear and answer them…” (Psalms 55:19–20). This verse teaches that the prayer was answered because there were many with me when it was offered.,That last proof was also taught in a baraita. Rabbi Natan says: From where do we know that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not despise the prayer of the masses? As it is stated: “Behold, God does not despise the mighty,” and it is written: “He has redeemed my soul in peace so that none came upon me; for there were many with me.” Rabbi Natan interprets this not as David speaking about himself, but as God speaking to Israel. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Anyone who engages in Torah study, which is called peace in the verse: “All its ways are peace” (Proverbs 3:17); and in acts of kindness, and prays with the congregation, I ascribe to him credit as if he redeemed Me and My children from among the nations of the world.,Continuing to extol communal prayer, Reish Lakish said: One who has a synagogue nearby in his city but does not enter to pray there is called an evil neighbor, as it is stated: “Thus said the Lord: As for all My evil neighbors who touch My inheritance which I have caused My people Israel to inherit, behold, I will pluck them up from off their land, and will pluck the house of Judah up from among them” (Jeremiah 12:14). One who only touches, but does not enter the place of prayer, My inheritance, is considered an evil neighbor. And furthermore, he is punished in that he causes himself and his children to go into exile, as it is stated: “Behold, I will pluck them up from off their land, and will pluck the house of Judah up from among them.”,The Gemara relates that when the Sages told Rabbi Yoḥa that there are elders in Babylonia, he was confounded and said: It is written: “So that your days will be lengthened and the days of your children upon the land the Lord swore to your forefathers to give to them like the days of heaven on the earth” (Deuteronomy 11:21); lengthened in Eretz Yisrael but not outside of the Land. Why then, do the residents of Babylonia live long lives? When they told him that the people in Babylonia go early in the morning and go late in the evening to the synagogue, he said: That is what was effective for them in extending their lives.,As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to his sons: Go early and go late and enter the synagogue, so that your lives will be extended. And Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Upon what verse is this based? As it is stated: “Happy is the man who listens to Me, watching daily at My gates, guarding at My door posts” (Proverbs 8:34). And the reward for doing so is written thereafter: “For whoso finds Me finds life and obtains the favor of the Lord” (Proverbs 8:35).,Based on this verse, Rav Ḥisda said: A person should always enter two doorways into the synagogue. This statement is unclear. Immediately, the Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that Rav Ḥisda meant that one should enter two doorways literally? What if a synagogue only has a single doorway? Rather, emend his statement and say that Rav Ḥisda meant that one should enter a distance of two doorways into the synagogue and then pray. In entering a distance of two doorways, one fulfills the verse: Guarding at My door posts, in the plural.,Having mentioned the verse, “For whoso finds Me finds life,” the Gemara seeks to clarify its meaning. It is said, “For this, let every pious man pray to You in the time of finding, that the overflowing waters may not reach him” (Psalms 32:6). With regard to the phrase, the time of finding, Rabbi Ḥanina said: The time of finding refers to the time one must find a wife, that one should pray to find a suitable woman to marry. As it is said: “He who finds matza a wife finds matza good and obtains favor from the Lord” (Proverbs 18:22).,In Eretz Yisrael, the custom was that when a man married a woman, they would ask him: Matza or motzeh? In other words, they would ask the groom whether the appropriate passage for his wife is the above verse from Proverbs that begins with the word matza, as it is written: “He who finds a wife finds good and obtains favor from the Lord” or whether the more appropriate verse is the one beginning with the word motzeh, as it is written: “And I find motzeh the woman more bitter than death” (Ecclesiastes 7:26).,Rabbi Natan says: The time of finding refers to the time of finding Torah, as it is stated in a verse referring to Torah: “He who finds Me finds life.” The Torah is the object most sought.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The time of finding refers to death. One should pray that when death comes, he will leave the world peacefully, as it is stated: “Issues totzaot of death” (Psalms 68:21). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement is based on the etymological similarity between totzaot and matza, finding.,It was also taught in a baraita: Nine hundred and three types of death were created in the world, as it is stated: “Issues totzaot of death,” and that, 903, is the numerical value gimatriya of totzaot. The Gemara explains that the most difficult of all these types of death is croup askara, while the easiest is the kiss of death. Croup is like a thorn entangled in a wool fleece, which, when pulled out backwards, tears the wool. Some say that croup is like ropes at the entrance to the esophagus, which would be nearly impossible to insert and excruciating to remove. The kiss of death is like drawing a hair from milk. One should pray that he does not die a painful death.,Rabbi Yoḥa said: The time of finding refers to a respectful burial, for which one should pray. Supporting Rabbi Yoḥa’s interpretation, Rabbi Ḥanina said: What is the verse that teaches that the time of finding refers to burial? “Who rejoice in exultation and are glad when they can find a grave” (Job 3:22), as there are situations in which one is relieved when his body finds a grave in which to rest. Rabba bar Rav Sheila said, that is the meaning of the folk saying: A person should even pray for mercy until the final shovelful of dirt is thrown upon his grave.,Mar Zutra said: The time of finding refers to finding a lavatory. As most places did not have a sewage system, one was forced to relieve himself outside the city. Because of this unpleasantness, finding a suitable location was called by Mar Zutra, the time of finding. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: This explanation of Mar Zutra is preferable to all of them, as the term motza is explicitly associated in the Bible (see II Kings 10:27) with the lavatory (Rabbi Abraham Moshe Horovitz).,Returning to the tractate’s central topic, Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: Let the Master say to us some of those outstanding statements that you said in the name of Rav Ḥisda with regard to matters of the synagogue.,Rafram said to him, Rav Ḥisda said as follows: What is the meaning of the verse: “The Lord loves the gates of Zion Tziyyon more than all the dwellings of Jacob” (Psalms 87:2)? This means that the Lord loves the gates distinguished metzuyanim through the study of halakha as they are the gates of Zion, the outstanding gates, more than the synagogues and study halls. Although those places are the most outstanding of the dwellings of Jacob, they are not engaged in the study of halakha.,And this concept, that halakha is the most sublime pursuit, is expressed in that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: Since the day the Temple, where the Divine Presence rested in this world, was destroyed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, has only one place in His world where he reveals His presence exclusively; only the four cubits where the study of halakha is undertaken.,This statement has practical ramifications. Abaye said: At first I studied in the house and prayed in the synagogue. Once I heard what Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: Since the day the Temple was destroyed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, has only one place in His world, only the four cubits of halakha alone, from which I understood the significance of the four cubits of halakha, and I pray only where I study.,Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, despite the fact that they had thirteen synagogues in Tiberias, they would only pray between the pillars where they studied.,And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: One who benefits from his hard labor is greater than a God-fearing person, i.e., one who is so enthralled by his fear of God that he sits idly by and does not work. As with regard to a God-fearing person, it is written: “Happy is the man who fears the Lord, who greatly desires His mitzvot” (Psalms 112:1), while with regard to one who benefits from his hard work, it is written: “By the labor of your hands you will live; you are happy and it is good for you” (Psalms 128:2). The Gemara explains this verse to mean that you are happy in this world, and it is good for you in the World-to-Come. And regarding a God-fearing person, happy is the man, is written about him but and it is good for you, is not written about him.,And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: One should always live in the place where his teacher lives; thereby he will avoid sin. For as long as Shimi ben Gera, who according to tradition was a great Torah scholar and teacher of Solomon (see Gittin 59a), was alive, Solomon did not marry Pharaoh’s daughter. Immediately after the Bible relates the death of Shimi (I Kings, end of ch. 2), Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter is recorded (beginning of ch. 3).,The Gemara raises an objection: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one should not live where his teacher lives?,The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, which says that one should live where his teacher lives, is referring to a case where he is acquiescent to his teacher and will heed his teaching and instruction. While this baraita, which says that one should not live where his teacher lives, is referring to a case where he is not acquiescent to him and that will lead them to quarrel.,The Gemara again returns to the topic of the synagogue. Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Menaḥem said that Rabbi Ami said: What is the practical halakhic meaning of that which is written: “They who forsake the Lord will perish” (Isaiah 1:28)? This verse refers to one who abandons the Torah scroll when it was taken out to be read and leaves the synagogue, as it appears that he is fleeing from God.,Practically speaking, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Abbahu would go out between one person who read the Torah and the next person who did so. Since the scroll was closed between readers, it was not considered to be a show of contempt.,Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the ruling with regard to leaving between one verse and the next verse? Is one permitted to leave during a break in the Torah reading while the verse was translated into Aramaic?,An answer to this question was not found, so the dilemma stands unresolved.,The Gemara relates that Rav Sheshet would turn his face away from the Torah while it was being read and study. Explaining this practice, he said: We are engaged in ours, the study of the Oral Torah and they are engaged in theirs, listening to the Written Torah. Since Rav Sheshet was engaged in Torah study, he is not considered one who forsakes the Lord.,Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Ami said: A person should always complete his Torah portions with the congregation. The congregation reads a particular Torah portion every Shabbat, and during the week prior to each Shabbat, one is required to read the Bible text of the weekly portion twice and the translation once.''. None |
|
4. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hiyya Bar Abba • Wife of R. Hiyya bar Ashi
Found in books: Kosman (2012) 25; Lavee (2017) 123
62b. אכולהו והא ששה חדשים קאמר אינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו פת בסלו,א"ל רבה בר רב חנן לאביי חמר ונעשה גמל מאי א"ל רוצה אשה בקב ותיפלות מעשרה קבין ופרישות:,הספנים אחת לששה חדשים דברי ר\' אליעזר: אמר רב ברונא אמר רב הלכה כר"א אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב זו דברי ר\' אליעזר אבל חכמים אומרים התלמידים יוצאין לת"ת ב\' וג\' שנים שלא ברשות אמר רבא סמכו רבנן אדרב אדא בר אהבה ועבדי עובדא בנפשייהו,כי הא דרב רחומי הוה שכיח קמיה דרבא במחוזא הוה רגיל דהוה אתי לביתיה כל מעלי יומא דכיפורי יומא חד משכתיה שמעתא הוה מסכיא דביתהו השתא אתי השתא אתי לא אתא חלש דעתה אחית דמעתא מעינה הוה יתיב באיגרא אפחית איגרא מתותיה ונח נפשיה,עונה של תלמידי חכמים אימת אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מע"ש לע"ש (תהלים א, ג) אשר פריו יתן בעתו אמר רב יהודה ואיתימא רב הונא ואיתימא רב נחמן זה המשמש מטתו מע"ש לע"ש,יהודה בריה דר\' חייא חתניה דר\' ינאי הוה אזיל ויתיב בבי רב וכל בי שמשי הוה אתי לביתיה וכי הוה אתי הוה קא חזי קמיה עמודא דנורא יומא חד משכתיה שמעתא כיון דלא חזי ההוא סימנא אמר להו רבי ינאי כפו מטתו שאילמלי יהודה קיים לא ביטל עונתו הואי (קהלת י, ה) כשגגה שיוצא מלפני השליט ונח נפשיה,רבי איעסק ליה לבריה בי רבי חייא כי מטא למיכתב כתובה נח נפשה דרביתא אמר רבי ח"ו פסולא איכא יתיבו ועיינו במשפחות רבי אתי משפטיה בן אביטל ורבי חייא אתי משמעי אחי דוד,אזיל איעסק ליה לבריה בי ר\' יוסי בן זימרא פסקו ליה תרתי סרי שנין למיזל בבי רב אחלפוה קמיה אמר להו ניהוו שית שנין אחלפוה קמיה אמר להו איכניס והדר איזיל הוה קא מכסיף מאבוה א"ל בני דעת קונך יש בך,מעיקרא כתיב (שמות טו, יז) תביאמו ותטעמו ולבסוף כתיב (שמות כה, ח) ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם,אזיל יתיב תרתי סרי שני בבי רב עד דאתא איעקרא דביתהו אמר רבי היכי נעביד נגרשה יאמרו ענייה זו לשוא שימרה נינסיב איתתא אחריתי יאמרו זו אשתו וזו זונתו בעי עלה רחמי ואיתסיאת:,רבי חנניה בן חכינאי הוה קאזיל לבי רב בשילהי הלוליה דר"ש בן יוחאי א"ל איעכב לי עד דאתי בהדך לא איעכבא ליה אזל יתיב תרי סרי שני בבי רב עד דאתי אישתנו שבילי דמתא ולא ידע למיזל לביתיה,אזל יתיב אגודא דנהרא שמע לההיא רביתא דהוו קרו לה בת חכינאי בת חכינאי מלי קולתך ותא ניזיל אמר ש"מ האי רביתא דידן אזל בתרה הוה יתיבא דביתהו קא נהלה קמחא דל עינה חזיתיה סוי לבה פרח רוחה אמר לפניו רבש"ע ענייה זו זה שכרה בעא רחמי עלה וחייה,רבי חמא בר ביסא אזיל יתיב תרי סרי שני בבי מדרשא כי אתא אמר לא איעביד כדעביד בן חכינאי עייל יתיב במדרשא שלח לביתיה אתא ר\' אושעיא בריה יתיב קמיה הוה קא משאיל ליה שמעתא חזא דקא מתחדדי שמעתיה חלש דעתיה אמר אי הואי הכא הוה לי זרע כי האי,על לביתיה על בריה קם קמיה הוא סבר למשאליה שמעתתא קא בעי אמרה ליה דביתהו מי איכא אבא דקאים מקמי ברא קרי עליה רמי בר חמא (קהלת ד, יב) החוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק זה ר\' אושעיא בנו של רבי חמא בר ביסא,ר"ע רעיא דבן כלבא שבוע הוה חזיתיה ברתיה דהוה צניע ומעלי אמרה ליה אי מקדשנא לך אזלת לבי רב אמר לה אין איקדשא ליה בצינעה ושדרתיה שמע אבוה אפקה מביתיה אדרה הנאה מנכסיה אזיל יתיב תרי סרי שנין בבי רב כי אתא אייתי בהדיה תרי סרי אלפי תלמידי שמעיה לההוא סבא דקאמר לה עד כמה''. None | 62b. the tanna taught us a halakha with regard to all of them, not only a man of leisure or a laborer. He asked him: But with regard to a sailor it said that the set interval for conjugal relations is six months; why, then, should he have to divorce her if he vowed to forbid these relations for only a week? He answered him: It is well known that one who has bread in his basket is not comparable to one who does not have bread in his basket. On a fast day, one who does not have bread available in his basket suffers more than one who does have bread available and knows that he will be able to eat later. In this case as well, when a woman knows that marital relations are forbidden to her due to a vow, her suffering from waiting for her husband to return is increased.,Rabba bar Rav Ha said to Abaye: If a donkey driver who is already married wants to become a camel driver, what is the halakha? Is he permitted to change his profession in order to earn more money from his work, even though this will mean he reduces the frequency with which he engages in conjugal relations with his wife? He answered him: A woman prefers a kav, i.e., modest means, with conjugal relations to ten kav with abstinence. Consequently, he is not allowed to change his profession without her permission.,§ The mishna stated: For sailors, the set interval for conjugal relations is once every six months. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Berona said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said: This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, but the Rabbis say: Students may leave their homes to study Torah for as long as two or three years without permission from their wives. Rava said: The Sages relied on Rabbi Adda bar Ahava’s opinion and performed an action like this themselves, but the results were sometimes fatal.,This is as it is related about Rav Reḥumi, who would commonly study before Rava in Meḥoza: He was accustomed to come back to his home every year on the eve of Yom Kippur. One day he was particularly engrossed in the halakha he was studying, and so he remained in the study hall and did not go home. His wife was expecting him that day and continually said to herself: Now he is coming, now he is coming. But in the end, he did not come. She was distressed by this and a tear fell from her eye. At that exact moment, Rav Reḥumi was sitting on the roof. The roof collapsed under him and he died. This teaches how much one must be careful, as he was punished severely for causing anguish to his wife, even inadvertently.,§ When is the ideal time for Torah scholars to fulfill their conjugal obligations? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The appropriate time for them is from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve, i.e., on Friday nights. Similarly, it is stated with regard to the verse “that brings forth its fruit in its season” (Psalms 1:3): Rav Yehuda said, and some say that it was Rav Huna, and some say that it was Rav Naḥman: This is referring to one who engages in marital relations, bringing forth his fruit, from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve.,It is related further that Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya and son-in-law of Rabbi Yannai, would go and sit in the study hall, and every Shabbat eve at twilight he would come to his house. When he would come, Rabbi Yannai would see a pillar of fire preceding him due to his sanctity. One day he was engrossed in the halakha he was studying, and he stayed in the study hall and did not return home. When Rabbi Yannai did not see that sign preceding him, he said to the family: Turn his bed over, as one does at times of mourning, since he must have died, reasoning that if Yehuda were alive he would not have missed his set interval for conjugal relations and would certainly have come home. What he said became “like an error that proceeds from a ruler” (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, died.,It is related further that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi arranged for his son to marry a daughter of the household of Rabbi Ḥiyya. When he came to write the marriage contract, the girl died. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Is there, Heaven forbid, some disqualification in these families, as it appears that God prevented this match from taking place? They sat and looked into the families’ ancestry and found that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was descended from Shefatya ben Avital, the wife of David, whereas Rabbi Ḥiyya was descended from Shimi, David’s brother.,He went and arranged for his son to marry a daughter of the household of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra. They agreed for him that they would support him for twelve years to go to study in the study hall. It was assumed that he would first go to study and afterward get married. They passed the girl in front of the groom and when he saw her he said: Let it be just six years. They passed her in front of him again and he said to them: I will marry her now and then go to study. He was then ashamed to see his father, as he thought he would reprimand him because when he saw the girl he desired her and could not wait. His father placated him and said to him: My son, you have your Maker’s perception, meaning you acted the same way that God does.,The proof for this is that initially it is written: “You bring them and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, the place that You, O Lord, have made for You to dwell in” (Exodus 15:17), which indicates that God’s original intention was to build a Temple for the Jewish people after they had entered Eretz Yisrael. And ultimately it is written: “And let them make Me a Sanctuary, that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8), i.e., even while they were still in the desert, which indicates that due to their closeness to God, they enjoyed greater affection and He therefore advanced what would originally have come later.,After his wedding he went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. By the time he came back his wife had become infertile, as a consequence of spending many years without her husband. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: What should we do? If he will divorce her, people will say: This poor woman waited and hoped for naught. If he will marry another woman to beget children, people will say: This one, who bears him children, is his wife and that one, who lives with him, is his mistress. Therefore, her husband pleaded with God to have mercy on her and she was cured.,Rabbi Ḥaya ben Ḥakhinai went to the study hall at the end of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s wedding feast. Rabbi Shimon said to him: Wait for me until I can come with you, after my days of celebration are over. However, since he wanted to learn Torah, he did not wait and went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. By the time he came back, all the paths of his city had changed and he did not know how to go to his home.,He went and sat on the bank of the river and heard people calling to a certain girl: Daughter of Ḥakhinai, daughter of Ḥakhinai, fill your pitcher and come up. He said: I can conclude from this that this is our daughter, meaning his own daughter, whom he had not recognized after so many years. He followed her to his house. His wife was sitting and sifting flour. She lifted her eyes up, saw him and recognized him, and her heart fluttered with agitation and she passed away from the emotional stress. Rabbi Ḥaya said before God: Master of the universe, is this the reward of this poor woman? He pleaded for mercy for her and she lived.,Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he came back to his house, he said: I will not do what the son of Ḥakhinai, who came home suddenly with tragic consequences for his wife, did. He went and sat in the study hall in his hometown, and sent a message to his house that he had arrived. While he was sitting there his son Rabbi Oshaya, whom he did not recognize, came and sat before him. Rabbi Oshaya asked him questions about halakha, and Rabbi Ḥama saw that the halakhot of Rabbi Oshaya were incisive, i.e., he was very sharp. Rabbi Ḥama was distressed and said: If I had been here and had taught my son I would have had a child like this.,Rabbi Ḥama went in to his house and his son went in with him. Rabbi Ḥama then stood up before him to honor a Torah scholar, since he thought that he wanted to ask him a matter of halakha. His wife said to him: Is there a father who stands up before his son? The Gemara comments: Rami bar Ḥama read the verse about him: “A threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12). This is referring to Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa, as he represented the third generation of Torah scholars in his family.,The Gemara further relates: Rabbi Akiva was the shepherd of ben Kalba Savua, one of the wealthy residents of Jerusalem. The daughter of Ben Kalba Savua saw that he was humble and refined. She said to him: If I betroth myself to you, will you go to the study hall to learn Torah? He said to her: Yes. She became betrothed to him privately and sent him off to study. Her father heard this and became angry. He removed her from his house and took a vow prohibiting her from benefiting from his property. Rabbi Akiva went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he came back to his house he brought twelve thousand students with him, and as he approached he heard an old man saying to his wife: For how long''. None |
|
5. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Hiyya bar Ashi, Rabbi • Wife of R. Hiyya bar Ashi
Found in books: Kosman (2012) 25; Rubenstein (2018) 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45
81b. תיב שפיר אמר ליה הבו לי כסא יהבו ליה כסא אכמר שדא ביה כיחו נחרו ביה שקא ומית שמעו דהוו קאמרי פלימו קטל גברא פלימו קטל גברא ערק וטשא נפשיה בבית הכסא אזיל בתריה נפל קמיה כי דחזייה דהוה מצטער גלי ליה נפשיה אמר ליה מאי טעמא אמרת הכי ואלא היכי אימא אמר ליה לימא מר רחמנא נגער ביה בשטן,רבי חייא בר אשי הוה רגיל כל עידן דהוה נפל לאפיה הוה אמר הרחמן יצילנו מיצר הרע יומא חד שמעתינהו דביתהו אמרה מכדי הא כמה שני דפריש ליה מינאי מאי טעמא קאמר הכי,יומא חדא הוה קא גריס בגינתיה קשטה נפשה חלפה ותנייה קמיה אמר לה מאן את אמרה אנא חרותא דהדרי מיומא תבעה אמרה ליה אייתי ניהליה להך רומנא דריש צוציתא שוור אזל אתייה ניהלה,כי אתא לביתיה הוה קא שגרא דביתהו תנורא סליק וקא יתיב בגויה אמרה ליה מאי האי אמר לה הכי והכי הוה מעשה אמרה ליה אנא הואי לא אשגח בה עד דיהבה ליה סימני אמר לה אנא מיהא לאיסורא איכווני כל ימיו של אותו צדיק היה מתענה עד שמת באותה מיתה,דתניא (במדבר ל, יג) אישה הפרם וה\' יסלח לה במה הכתוב מדבר באשה שנדרה בנזיר ושמע בעלה והפר לה והיא לא ידעה שהפר לה בעלה והיתה שותה יין ומטמאה למתים,רבי עקיבא כי הוה מטי להאי פסוקא הוה בכי אמר ומה מי שנתכוין לאכול בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר טלה אמרה תורה צריכה כפרה וסליחה מי שנתכוין לאכול בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר חזיר על אחת כמה וכמה,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (ויקרא ה, יז) ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו כשהיה רבי עקיבא מגיע לפסוק זה היה בוכה ומה מי שנתכוין לאכול שומן ועלה בידו חלב אמרה תורה ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו מי שנתכוין לאכול חלב ועלה בידו חלב על אחת כמה וכמה איסי בן יהודה אומר ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו על דבר זה ידוו כל הדווים,מתייחד אדם עם אמו אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי מתייחד אדם עם אחותו ודר עם אמו ועם בתו כי אמרה קמיה דשמואל אמר אסור להתייחד עם כל עריות שבתורה ואפילו עם בהמה,תנן מתייחד אדם עם אמו ועם בתו וישן עמהם בקירוב בשר ותיובתא דשמואל אמר לך שמואל וליטעמיך הא דתניא אחותו וחמותו ושאר כל עריות שבתורה אין מתייחד עמהם אלא בעדים בעדים אין שלא בעדים לא,אלא תנאי היא דתניא אמר רבי מאיר הזהרו בי מפני בתי אמר רבי טרפון הזהרו בי מפני כלתי ליגלג עליו אותו תלמיד אמר רבי אבהו משום רבי חנינא בן גמליאל לא היו ימים מועטים עד שנכשל אותו תלמיד בחמותו,אפילו עם בהמה אביי מכלליה מכולה דברא רב ששת מעבר ליה מצרא רב חנן מנהרדעא איקלע לרב כהנא לפום נהרא חזייה דיתיב וקא גרס וקיימא בהמה קמיה אמר ליה לא סבר לה מר אפילו עם בהמה אמר ליה לאו אדעתאי,אמר רבא מתייחד אדם עם שתי יבמות ועם שתי צרות עם אשה וחמותה עם אשה ובת בעלה עם אשה ותינוקת שיודעת טעם ביאה ואין מוסרת עצמה לביאה,הגדילו זה ישן בכסותו וכו\' וכמה אמר רב אדא בר רב עזא אמר רב אסי תינוקת בת תשע שנים ויום אחד תינוק בן שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד איכא דאמרי תינוקת בת שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד תינוק בן שלש עשרה ויום אחד וזה וזה כדי שיהיו (יחזקאל טז, ז) שדים נכונו ושערך צמח,אמר רפרם בר פפא א"ר חסדא לא שנו אלא שאינה בושה לעמוד לפניו ערום אבל בושה לעמוד לפניו ערום אסור מאי טעמא יצר אלבשה,רב אחא בר אבא איקלע לבי רב חסדא חתניה שקליה לבת ברתיה אותבוה בכנפיה אמר ליה לא סבר לה מר דמקדשא אמר ליה עברת לך אדרב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואיתימא רבי אלעזר אסור לאדם שיקדש את בתו כשהיא קטנה עד שתגדיל ותאמר בפלוני אני רוצה מר נמי עבר ליה אדשמואל דאמר שמואל אין משתמשים באשה אמר ליה אנא כאידך דשמואל סבירא לי דאמר שמואל''. None | 81b. Sit properly and do not act in a revolting manner. Satan then said to him: Give me a cup. They gave him a cup. He coughed up his phlegm and spat it into the cup. They berated him for acting this way, at which point Satan pretended to sink down and die. They heard people around them saying: Peleimu killed a man! Peleimu killed a man! Peleimu fled and hid himself in the bathroom. Satan followed him and fell before him. Upon seeing that Peleimu was suffering, he revealed himself to him. Satan said to him: What is the reason that you spoke this way, provoking me by saying: An arrow in the eye of Satan? He replied: But what then should I say? Satan said to him: Let the Master, i.e., Peleimu, say: Let the Merciful One rebuke the Satan.,The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi was accustomed to say, whenever he would fall on his face in prayer: May the Merciful One save us from the evil inclination. One day his wife heard him saying this prayer. She said: After all, it has been several years since he has withdrawn from engaging in intercourse with me due to his advanced years. What is the reason that he says this prayer, as there is no concern that he will engage in sinful sexual behavior?,One day, while he was studying in his garden, she adorned herself and repeatedly walked past him. He said: Who are you? She said: I am Ḥaruta, a well-known prostitute, returning from my day at work. He propositioned her. She said to him: Give me that pomegranate from the top of the tree as payment. He leapt up, went, and brought it to her, and they engaged in intercourse.,When he came home, his wife was lighting a fire in the oven. He went and sat inside it. She said to him: What is this? He said to her: Such and such an incident occurred; he told her that he engaged in intercourse with a prostitute. She said to him: It was I. He paid no attention to her, thinking she was merely trying to comfort him, until she gave him signs that it was indeed she. He said to her: I, in any event, intended to transgress. The Gemara relates: All the days of that righteous man he would fast for the transgression he intended to commit, until he died by that death in his misery.,The Gemara explains the source that one who intended to transgress is punished even though he did not actually sin. As it is taught in a baraita concerning a husband who nullified the vow of his wife: “Her husband has made them null; and the Lord will forgive her” (Numbers 30:13). With regard to what case is the verse speaking? Why would the woman require forgiveness if her husband has nullified her vow? It is referring to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and her husband heard and nullified her vow. And she did not know that her husband had nullified her vow, and she drank wine and contracted impurity from a corpse, violating her presumed vow.,The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Akiva came to this verse he would cry. He said: And if with regard to one who intended to eat pork, and kosher lamb came up in his hand, like this woman who intended to violate her vow but in fact did not, the Torah nevertheless says: She requires atonement and forgiveness, all the more so does one who intended to eat pork and pork came up in his hand require atonement and forgiveness.,In a similar manner, you can say that the same lesson can be derived from the verse: “Though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:17). When Rabbi Akiva came to this verse he would cry. He said: And if with regard to one who intended to eat permitted fat, and forbidden fat mistakenly came up in his hand, the Torah states: “Though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity,” all the more so is this true for one who intended to eat forbidden fat and forbidden fat came up in his hand. Isi ben Yehuda says with regard to the verse “Though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity”: With regard to this matter all sufferers shall grieve, since the verse teaches that one is punished even for sinning unawares.,§ The mishna teaches that a man may be secluded with his mother. Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: A man may be secluded with his sister, and live with his mother or with his daughter in a permanent arrangement, without concern. When he said this before Shmuel, the latter said: It is prohibited to be secluded with all those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah, and even with an animal, as it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with an animal as well.,We learned in the mishna: A man may be secluded with his mother, and with his daughter, and sleep alongside them with bodily contact, and this appears to be a conclusive refutation of the statement of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: Shmuel could have said to you: And according to your reasoning, how should one explain that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to his sister, and his mother-in-law, and all those with whom relations are forbidden, including his mother and daughter, one may be secluded with them only in the presence of witnesses, from which it can be inferred: In the presence of witnesses, yes; without the presence of witnesses, no. This baraita supports the opinion of Shmuel that one may not be secluded with his mother or sister.,Rather, it is a dispute between tanna’im as to whether one may be secluded with his mother or sister. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir said: Be careful with me because of my daughter, i.e., make sure I am not left secluded with her. Similarly, Rabbi Tarfon said: Be careful with me because of my daughter-in-law. A certain student mocked him for being wary of the possibility of sinning with his daughter-in-law. Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: Not many days passed until that student stumbled into sin with his mother-in-law.,The Gemara stated that according to Shmuel it is prohibited for one to be alone even with an animal. The Gemara relates: Abaye removed the animals from the entire field he was in. Rav Sheshet transferred the animals to the other side of the fence. Rav Ḥa from Neharde’a happened to come to Rav Kahana in Pum Nahara. He saw that he was sitting and studying, and an animal was standing before him. Rav Ḥa said to him: Doesn’t the Master hold that one may not be secluded even with an animal? Rav Kahana said to him: It did not enter my mind that an animal was before me.,Rava says: A man may be secluded with two sisters-in-law and with two rival wives, i.e., two women who share a husband; with a woman and her mother-in-law; and with a woman and her husband’s daughter. Since these women typically dislike each other, each fears that the other will publicize her sins, and they will be careful not to transgress. Similarly, a man may be secluded with a woman and a girl who knows the meaning of sexual intercourse, i.e., one who is old enough to understand the nature of intercourse, but is still young enough that she does not submit herself to intercourse, since she does not yet desire it. In such a situation, the woman is concerned that the child will reveal her behavior.,§ The mishna teaches that when one’s children have grown up, this one sleeps in his garment and that one sleeps in her garment, but they may share a bed. The Gemara asks: And how old must a child be to be considered grown up for the purposes of this halakha? Rav Adda bar Rav Azza says that Rav Asi says: A girl must reach the age of nine years and one day; a boy must reach the age of twelve years and one day. There are those who say: A girl must reach the age of twelve years and one day; a boy must reach the age of thirteen years and one day. And according to this and that, according to both opinions, the girl is considered a child until she has reached the stage of: “Your breasts were fashioned, and your hair was grown” (Ezekiel 16:7), meaning the onset of puberty.,Rafram bar Pappa says that Rav Ḥisda says: They taught that a man may sleep in close proximity to his minor daughter only if she is not ashamed to stand naked before him, but if she is ashamed to stand naked before him, it is prohibited for him to sleep close to her, regardless of her age. What is the reason? It is that the inclination has a hold upon her, as otherwise she would not be ashamed.,The Gemara relates: Rav Aḥa bar Abba arrived at the house of Rav Ḥisda, his son-in-law. He took his daughter’s daughter and placed her on his lap. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Doesn’t the Master think that she might already be betrothed? Rav Aḥa said to him: If that is true, you have transgressed the ruling of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and some say it was said by Rabbi Elazar: It is prohibited for a man to betroth his daughter when she is a minor, until she grows up and says: I want to marry so-and-so, as otherwise she might reject the designated husband and ultimately sin by committing adultery. Rav Ḥisda replied: The Master has likewise transgressed the words of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: One may not make use of a woman, so how can you hold her on your lap? He said to him: I hold in accordance with another statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says:''. None |
|
